Most free software is inspired by not-so-free software, and software in general has poor usability. Once mainstream software becomes highly usable, free software will too, since they will clone the good out of it.
As it is, there is not much to copy or, as one might put it, "be inspired from."
A good UI is not cute, cool, or pretty. It is one that makes functionality obvious while itself remaining invisible.
You can make a good UI cute, cool, or pretty, and you may get praises for it, but it isn't what makes it usable.
There is a fundamental paradox is usability testing. If you ask about usability, you are asking what people notice. But the best UIs are those that are not noticeable. You should never test a UI. You should only test the usability of the application, and measure things like confusion and task completion speed.
Asking the user is like a cook asking his diners how he should alter his recipe. If he is at that level, then he is not a great cook. If you are still asking your users about what to fix in your interfaces, you are not a great UI architect. This is a good workaround if you do not have one, of course.
The idea that parents can help might be valid, but to say that parents are the solution is a huge pitfall. It will not happen. You are abandoning everyone that doesn't have qualified parents. And that is a lot of students.
Parents already care and love their children. Who doesn't? Then why do so many children end up thinking otherwise? They don't know what they are doing. Their best isn't good enough. Tell them to do better, and they will try, but that doesn't make them any more capable.
There is one thing that many many many uninspired under-performing students have in common. They either have a broken family, or their parents are not very inspiring education-wise. Children mimic their parents. If mom and dad don't have a high school education, then there is nothing they can do to inspire their child to have one. They may be good people, but how could they inspire their child in a way that helps them excel in a society that they failed to excel in? Even worse, parents could be in jail, addicts, or dead.
To tell a child school can't help them but their parents can, when the child has no parents, is not a solution.
Much like the Yale poster here, MIT is no different. The CS courses are about theory, history, and how computers "are." There is a difference between computer science and computer programming. The more practical programming classes weren't even taught by the computer department - they'd be in civil engineering or mech eng because those students needed to be able to practically program for certain tasks related to the field.
Computer science courses just assume you can program. If you can't, then you'll have to pick it up on your own, and yes, there are plenty of peers readily available to help you.
In general, the schools you go to are only partially about the content of what they teach. You go there for the people. How would you like a computer scientist that pioneered their field to be your mentor? Wouldn't you rather be with students with similar goals and aspirations as you? It is the community that you join, and the education that comes with it is only as good as the people you learn from. Only by learning from the best, will you truly know what best is and where best is at. That is a true advantage if you dream to be and intend to become... the best.
Many things drop in price with demand, but technology does not necessarily improve because more people work on the problem. Cancer and AIDS is a good example. Even Viagra was discovered by accident, showing sometimes it isn't even the people at all. A case more relevant would be Electronic Cars. Just like everything else electronic, many just assumed Electronic cars would take over in a matter of time, because the technology was just assumed to get better. Well, it didn't. In fact, now many manufacturers have given up on the idea because, well, they couldn't improve batteries. They hit a limit they couldn't breach. They've found better ways to do similar things, like with Hybrids. But will Hybrids now double in MPG with added research? I highly doubt it.
I find solar very similar. I am no expert, but seeing that the fundamental science behind current solar cells seems to have reached its full potential pretty fast (like, decades ago), it seems quite clear anything beyond that is incremental, not exponential, or even a multiple, for that matter.
The recent slashdot post about someone installing solar panels and talking about the experience also goes to show how lame the process actually is. These things need to be plug and play. Someone is not doing their part to make things easier. The market isn't built that way.
Any non-encrypted data communications over the internet can be tapped and understood, no? Maybe Skype has the decryption key, or maybe Skype just has the "tools" for listening in on a skype stream, but I don't see how this is a surprise.
Maybe the authorities just assumed skype was tappable because they know internet connections are tappable.
These replies have been very helpful. Without any standardization on compression it seems to me that HD lacks the features to be a standard for quality. The whole industry has us all believing that it does:(
I hate to just post questions, but if anyone knows, I think we all deserve to know what everyone is trying to hide from us!! This bugs the hell out of me, and I hope I am not the only one:(
1. What is the standard, uncompromised compression rate for full HD video? eg. The rate of compression on a Blue Ray disc.
2. What is the standard compression rate for cable HD video? eg. What I can expect from Time Warner.
3. What does Apple and Netflix (if they have a service) think they can get away with? eg. What they'll stream to me when I buy/rent something from their movie service.
And finally,
4. What is the bit rate or internet throughput required to stream true uncompromised HD video? I ask this, because I am in doubt as to whether most cable and DSL connections are even fast enough.
My TV isn't HD, and even with regular resolution programming, the quality is hideous. All jpeg-ed out, I like to call it. If they can't deliver regular programming properly, it makes me wonder how we are to expect them to deliver quality HD. And since I already know they can't, it is disturbing how they can claim they can, and are. Because I thought there already was a name for sub-HD video: Enhanced Definition, or ED, or rather, High Definition Erectile Disfunction TV!
Oh, I read your comment. You can disagree with me, but I don't think you get my point.
What I am getting at is the fact that you seem to think that EULAs are what are truly restrictive and that copyright law itself is pretty much just a "no redistribution law". Try reading the full section on copyright law. Heck, just scroll over it. It is longer than most EULAs. In fact, because it is so restrictive, they keep adding exceptions to try and make it more fair. The Fair Use clause is a great example. There is no such clause for software yet btw.
What exactly about EULAs do you hate then? Or which EULA are you talking about? None of the software I buy requires me to use it in any specific way. Some may restrict copying more than others, but that is something already restricted, and even if the EULA says you can't do something, usually it has to be enforced within the software (like online registration) for anyone to give a damn. Furthermore, if the software itself has features to prevent certain use, then it is like buying a Ford with 3 wheels. Blame the Ford. Return it. The EULA really has nothing to do with it.
In fact, I bet you already ignore EULAs. Have you ever read any of them? No one does anymore. It is pretty much legal insurance for the maker so they have an easier time suing you when you do something to irritate them. Well, we all pretty much know how to hide any bad behavior, so I don't think any of us are worried about anything in an EULA, and hence we just hit "I Agree".
I will go as far as to say you probably ignore Copyright law just the same. You explicitly single out the no redistribution aspect, but that is of course because that is something that could get you caught. In the privacy of your own home, who knows what you are doing with and to your software, and heck, the US Justice department could care less.
Put my reply in context. There are exceptions to "the rule", but "the rule" is you cannot freely copy what you own. Copyright protection wouldn't be protection otherwise.
Right. Except my reply was referring to the posters conclusion which appeared to have already moved on from the scope of w3c, and into more generalized territory.
Users don't want valid code: they just want pretty, moving pictures and sound (that they can easily turn on and off, of course).
To this hypothesis I gave a more generalized answer, which by the way, would still hold whether he had meant w3c valid or "working" valid.
To a programmer, working code is "valid" code (see, now you have me using quotes).
W3c managed the improbable. They managed to steal the term "valid" for code that doesn't work. I want my "valid" back.
I don't think it needs to be that abstract. Google's patent triggers many physical changes, and perhaps elaborating on some of them is all the Patent Office is asking.
1. Google creates data/files that are then saved to computers, which causes physical transformations of the data recording medium.
2. Google also creates and presents their results through a monitor, which can then be manipulated by the user through specific "controllers". They could even argue these results to be "products".
3. Google sends and receives data over the network innovatively.
All of these things are non-virtual and physical in nature. Their patent could easily be reworded to incorporate all these physical elements regarding their innovation in hand, rather than concentrating on the virtual ones which seem to be more troublesome for the agency.
No. The exact same paragraph concludes the opposite (in bold):
"The vast bulk of patents on software, business and information technology are thought by some not to be threatened because those innovations are typically implemented on a machineâ"namely, a computerâ"and the tie to a machine would provide security against the agencyâ(TM)s contractions of  101. Even if that view were right, the contraction of patent eligibility would be very troubling because the patent system is supposed to be designed to encourage the atypical, the unusual and the innovative. But that view is wrong."
And the rest of the article will enlighten you as to why.
I don't think these people here read the whole article (I don't expect that), but the issue here is not just about software patents.
Software patents represent the cutting edge in innovation for a good two decades, and to now backpedal and have the patent office claim they mishandled these applications is not just a blow to software, it represents a breakdown of the system itself.
From the article:
And it is likely to generate puzzlement among business people and innovators, who may wonder how agency decisions supposedly premised on the need for ensuring that âoethat the patent system be directed to protecting technological innovationsâ[22] have ended up rendering unpatentable innovations in search engine technology, computer modeling, bioinformatics and many other innovations in cutting edge fields related to software and information technology.
So Dyson, Pfizer, and Toyota are innovative/inventive, but Apple, IBM, and Google are not? It would be easy to argue they are, and if they in fact are, then what are the patent office's claims that make them not worthy of similar protection? That they work at a higher abstraction level than wood and glue, nuts and bolts, soldiering irons and circuit boards?
Yes there are some very stupid software patents. But look at all other types of patents. The number of ridiculous patents you find will be proportional to the time you spend looking. It is when these patents become cause for litigation that they start to hold any meaning whatsoever.
"This context" you speak of is what w3c would have you believe to be "the only" context. But from a web developer's standpoint, it doesn't have to be, and from a pragmatic standpoint, it shouldn't.
Furthermore, even if I abide by your strict w3c standard regarding the term "valid", my point is the same. Validity has no meaning as it has no application to the user, as the poster I replied to had realized. I was simply pointing out that all the browser developers have diversified for the same reason. For example, IE thought they could make pages look prettier by doing things a different way...
At the end of the day, when you want your page to "do something", validation should be the last thing to stand in your way.
Users don't want valid code: they just want pretty
Not only that, once you're in deep for a while you realize that "valid code" is a self-defined term. Do you mean w3c valid or microsoft valid or acid 4 valid? Even the developers of each browser have their own view of "valid," hence all the diversity.
'At the bottom of the list of IT priorities are grid computing, open-source software, content management and cloud computing (called on-demand/utility computing in the survey) â" less than 2% of the respondents said cloud computing was a priority.'
What the hell is "on-demand/utility" computing? The fact that it requires a "/" in the name is a total buzz kill. And both grid computing and open source software are concepts, not products, so they won't "buy" them obviously.
'The CIOs indicated that server virtualization and server consolidation are their No. 1 and No. 2 priorities.'
My understanding is that _this_ is exactly what cloud computing is... or touts to be. And hence the buzz.
Your 12 servers virtualized = Your "Cloud"
Yes, it is still a foggy concept, but clearly this is the way to go, and what is driving the trend.
Slashdot Mirror
Most free software is inspired by not-so-free software, and software in general has poor usability. Once mainstream software becomes highly usable, free software will too, since they will clone the good out of it.
As it is, there is not much to copy or, as one might put it, "be inspired from."
A good UI is not cute, cool, or pretty. It is one that makes
functionality obvious while itself remaining invisible.
You can make a good UI cute, cool, or pretty, and you may get praises
for it, but it isn't what makes it usable.
There is a fundamental paradox is usability testing. If you ask about
usability, you are asking what people notice. But the best UIs are those
that are not noticeable. You should never test a UI. You should only
test the usability of the application, and measure things like confusion
and task completion speed.
Asking the user is like a cook asking his diners how he should alter his recipe. If he is at that level, then he is not a great cook. If you are still asking your users about what to fix in your interfaces, you are not a great UI architect. This is a good workaround if you do not have one, of course.
The idea that parents can help might be valid, but to say that parents are the solution is a huge pitfall. It will not happen. You are abandoning everyone that doesn't have qualified parents. And that is a lot of students.
Parents already care and love their children. Who doesn't? Then why do so many children end up thinking otherwise? They don't know what they are doing. Their best isn't good enough. Tell them to do better, and they will try, but that doesn't make them any more capable.
There is one thing that many many many uninspired under-performing students have in common. They either have a broken family, or their parents are not very inspiring education-wise. Children mimic their parents. If mom and dad don't have a high school education, then there is nothing they can do to inspire their child to have one. They may be good people, but how could they inspire their child in a way that helps them excel in a society that they failed to excel in? Even worse, parents could be in jail, addicts, or dead.
To tell a child school can't help them but their parents can, when the child has no parents, is not a solution.
no its kewel (cool)!
Much like the Yale poster here, MIT is no different. The CS courses are about theory, history, and how computers "are." There is a difference between computer science and computer programming. The more practical programming classes weren't even taught by the computer department - they'd be in civil engineering or mech eng because those students needed to be able to practically program for certain tasks related to the field.
Computer science courses just assume you can program. If you can't, then you'll have to pick it up on your own, and yes, there are plenty of peers readily available to help you.
In general, the schools you go to are only partially about the content of what they teach. You go there for the people. How would you like a computer scientist that pioneered their field to be your mentor? Wouldn't you rather be with students with similar goals and aspirations as you? It is the community that you join, and the education that comes with it is only as good as the people you learn from. Only by learning from the best, will you truly know what best is and where best is at. That is a true advantage if you dream to be and intend to become... the best.
You'd think NASA scientists knew more about the reliability of vibrating devices...
Many things drop in price with demand, but technology does not necessarily improve because more people work on the problem. Cancer and AIDS is a good example. Even Viagra was discovered by accident, showing sometimes it isn't even the people at all. A case more relevant would be Electronic Cars. Just like everything else electronic, many just assumed Electronic cars would take over in a matter of time, because the technology was just assumed to get better. Well, it didn't. In fact, now many manufacturers have given up on the idea because, well, they couldn't improve batteries. They hit a limit they couldn't breach. They've found better ways to do similar things, like with Hybrids. But will Hybrids now double in MPG with added research? I highly doubt it.
I find solar very similar. I am no expert, but seeing that the fundamental science behind current solar cells seems to have reached its full potential pretty fast (like, decades ago), it seems quite clear anything beyond that is incremental, not exponential, or even a multiple, for that matter.
The recent slashdot post about someone installing solar panels and talking about the experience also goes to show how lame the process actually is. These things need to be plug and play. Someone is not doing their part to make things easier. The market isn't built that way.
Any non-encrypted data communications over the internet can be tapped and understood, no? Maybe Skype has the decryption key, or maybe Skype just has the "tools" for listening in on a skype stream, but I don't see how this is a surprise.
Maybe the authorities just assumed skype was tappable because they know internet connections are tappable.
These replies have been very helpful. Without any standardization on compression it seems to me that HD lacks the features to be a standard for quality. The whole industry has us all believing that it does :(
Who did the math behind this study? Was it a boy or a girl?
I hate to just post questions, but if anyone knows, I think we all deserve to know what everyone is trying to hide from us!! This bugs the hell out of me, and I hope I am not the only one :(
1. What is the standard, uncompromised compression rate for full HD video? eg. The rate of compression on a Blue Ray disc.
2. What is the standard compression rate for cable HD video? eg. What I can expect from Time Warner.
3. What does Apple and Netflix (if they have a service) think they can get away with? eg. What they'll stream to me when I buy/rent something from their movie service.
And finally,
4. What is the bit rate or internet throughput required to stream true uncompromised HD video? I ask this, because I am in doubt as to whether most cable and DSL connections are even fast enough.
My TV isn't HD, and even with regular resolution programming, the quality is hideous. All jpeg-ed out, I like to call it. If they can't deliver regular programming properly, it makes me wonder how we are to expect them to deliver quality HD. And since I already know they can't, it is disturbing how they can claim they can, and are. Because I thought there already was a name for sub-HD video: Enhanced Definition, or ED, or rather, High Definition Erectile Disfunction TV!
Oh, I read your comment. You can disagree with me, but I don't think you get my point.
What I am getting at is the fact that you seem to think that EULAs are what are truly restrictive and that copyright law itself is pretty much just a "no redistribution law". Try reading the full section on copyright law. Heck, just scroll over it. It is longer than most EULAs. In fact, because it is so restrictive, they keep adding exceptions to try and make it more fair. The Fair Use clause is a great example. There is no such clause for software yet btw.
What exactly about EULAs do you hate then? Or which EULA are you talking about? None of the software I buy requires me to use it in any specific way. Some may restrict copying more than others, but that is something already restricted, and even if the EULA says you can't do something, usually it has to be enforced within the software (like online registration) for anyone to give a damn. Furthermore, if the software itself has features to prevent certain use, then it is like buying a Ford with 3 wheels. Blame the Ford. Return it. The EULA really has nothing to do with it.
In fact, I bet you already ignore EULAs. Have you ever read any of them? No one does anymore. It is pretty much legal insurance for the maker so they have an easier time suing you when you do something to irritate them. Well, we all pretty much know how to hide any bad behavior, so I don't think any of us are worried about anything in an EULA, and hence we just hit "I Agree".
I will go as far as to say you probably ignore Copyright law just the same. You explicitly single out the no redistribution aspect, but that is of course because that is something that could get you caught. In the privacy of your own home, who knows what you are doing with and to your software, and heck, the US Justice department could care less.
I am talking about "the rule" as in, "the spirit of copyright protection". It is illegal to "do whatever you want" with a copy or a master copy.
You are talking about "the rules (with an s)" as in, "the implementation of the spirit of copyright protection".
Yes, the implementation is composed of many rules, and they talk about what you can and cannot do more specifically.
Yes, you can copy under certain circumstances, as pasted like a smart man, but is that what the parent poster was talking about?
No, he wants to "do whatever he pleases". He is saying EULAs are lame, but I am saying even without them he cannot do whatever he pleases.
Welcome to the context. I'll try to speak in shallower terms next time.
Put my reply in context. There are exceptions to "the rule", but "the rule" is you cannot freely copy what you own. Copyright protection wouldn't be protection otherwise.
Anonymous Coward, oh you so smart!
Right. Except my reply was referring to the posters conclusion which appeared to have already moved on from the scope of w3c, and into more generalized territory.
Users don't want valid code: they just want pretty, moving pictures and sound (that they can easily turn on and off, of course).
To this hypothesis I gave a more generalized answer, which by the way, would still hold whether he had meant w3c valid or "working" valid.
To a programmer, working code is "valid" code (see, now you have me using quotes).
W3c managed the improbable. They managed to steal the term "valid" for code that doesn't work. I want my "valid" back.
I don't think it needs to be that abstract. Google's patent triggers many physical changes, and perhaps elaborating on some of them is all the Patent Office is asking.
1. Google creates data/files that are then saved to computers, which causes physical transformations of the data recording medium.
2. Google also creates and presents their results through a monitor, which can then be manipulated by the user through specific "controllers". They could even argue these results to be "products".
3. Google sends and receives data over the network innovatively.
All of these things are non-virtual and physical in nature. Their patent could easily be reworded to incorporate all these physical elements regarding their innovation in hand, rather than concentrating on the virtual ones which seem to be more troublesome for the agency.
No. The exact same paragraph concludes the opposite (in bold):
"The vast bulk of patents on software, business and information technology are thought by some not to be threatened because those innovations are typically implemented on a machineâ"namely, a computerâ"and the tie to a machine would provide security against the agencyâ(TM)s contractions of  101. Even if that view were right, the contraction of patent eligibility would be very troubling because the patent system is supposed to be designed to encourage the atypical, the unusual and the innovative. But that view is wrong."
And the rest of the article will enlighten you as to why.
I don't think these people here read the whole article (I don't expect that), but the issue here is not just about software patents.
Software patents represent the cutting edge in innovation for a good two decades, and to now backpedal and have the patent office claim they mishandled these applications is not just a blow to software, it represents a breakdown of the system itself.
From the article:
And it is likely to generate puzzlement among business people and innovators, who may wonder how agency decisions supposedly premised on the need for ensuring that âoethat the patent system be directed to protecting technological innovationsâ[22] have ended up rendering unpatentable innovations in search engine technology, computer modeling, bioinformatics and many other innovations in cutting edge fields related to software and information technology.
So Dyson, Pfizer, and Toyota are innovative/inventive, but Apple, IBM, and Google are not? It would be easy to argue they are, and if they in fact are, then what are the patent office's claims that make them not worthy of similar protection? That they work at a higher abstraction level than wood and glue, nuts and bolts, soldiering irons and circuit boards?
Yes there are some very stupid software patents. But look at all other types of patents. The number of ridiculous patents you find will be proportional to the time you spend looking. It is when these patents become cause for litigation that they start to hold any meaning whatsoever.
If I buy a copy, that copy is mine, I do whatever I want with it (as long as it's not explicitely forbidden by law).
Well, copying it is explicitly forbidden by law.
The fact is, patenting software is nothing short of anti-competitive behavior.
Well, patents are designed to be anti-competitive in nature regardless of subject matter. Patents grant a monopoly.
In fact, the only way software patents have inspired people to be creative is in finding ways AROUND existing patents.
This does not pertain to software alone. Patent circumvention can be seen anywhere, from shavers to cars to chairs to what have you.
You got me. I didn't know "valid" was a w3c standard, and all other uses were deprecated.
"This context" you speak of is what w3c would have you believe to be "the only" context. But from a web developer's standpoint, it doesn't have to be, and from a pragmatic standpoint, it shouldn't.
Furthermore, even if I abide by your strict w3c standard regarding the term "valid", my point is the same. Validity has no meaning as it has no application to the user, as the poster I replied to had realized. I was simply pointing out that all the browser developers have diversified for the same reason. For example, IE thought they could make pages look prettier by doing things a different way...
At the end of the day, when you want your page to "do something", validation should be the last thing to stand in your way.
Users don't want valid code: they just want pretty
Not only that, once you're in deep for a while you realize that "valid code" is a self-defined term. Do you mean w3c valid or microsoft valid or acid 4 valid? Even the developers of each browser have their own view of "valid," hence all the diversity.
'At the bottom of the list of IT priorities are grid computing, open-source software, content management and cloud computing (called on-demand/utility computing in the survey) â" less than 2% of the respondents said cloud computing was a priority.'
What the hell is "on-demand/utility" computing? The fact that it requires a "/" in the name is a total buzz kill. And both grid computing and open source software are concepts, not products, so they won't "buy" them obviously.
'The CIOs indicated that server virtualization and server consolidation are their No. 1 and No. 2 priorities.'
My understanding is that _this_ is exactly what cloud computing is... or touts to be. And hence the buzz.
Your 12 servers virtualized = Your "Cloud"
Yes, it is still a foggy concept, but clearly this is the way to go, and what is driving the trend.